Category Archives: Patentability

Board decision finding ineligibility under section 101 affirmed (abstract idea, generic computer)

Posted on August 25, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

In Re:  Jeffrey A. Killian Docket No. 2021-2113 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2113.OPINION.8-23-2022_1994643.pdf) TARANTO, CLEVENGER, CHEN August 23, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board decision finding claims ineligible under section 101 affirmed. Summary:  Mr. Killian appealed USPTO Board decision affirming the examiner’s rejection of certain … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

DC finding of Stanford’s organ rejection detection claims ineligible under section 101 affirmed

Posted on July 21, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

CareDx, Inc. (Stanford Univ.) v. Natera, Inc. and Eurofins Viracor, Inc. Docket Nos. 2022-1027-8 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1027.OPINION.7-18-2022_1979207.pdf) LOURIE, BRYSON, HUGHES July 18, 2022 Brief Summary:   Stanford’s claims to detecting organ rejection found ineligible under section 101 (e.g., “applying standard techniques in … Continue reading →

Posted in Method claims, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability) | Leave a comment

DC section 101 ineligibility decision reversed as “the particular arrangement of steps in claim 1 provides a technical improvement” over conventional methods

Posted on October 27, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

CosmoKey Solutions Gmbh & Co. KG v. Duo Security LLC et al. Docket No. 2020-2043 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2043.OPINION.10-4-2021_1843694.pdf) O’MALLEY, REYNA, STOLL October 4, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC decision finding CosmoKey’s claims unpatentable under section 101 reversed (e.g., “the particular arrangement of steps … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment

Digital camera device claims affirmed as patent ineligible under section 101

Posted on June 14, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Yanbin Yu, et al. v. Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. Docket No. 2020-1760 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1760.OPINION.6-11-2021_1789244.pdf) NEWMAN, PROST, TARANTO June 11, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC finding that claims to “improved digital camera” are patent ineligibile (101) affirmed (“whether a … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

Rejection of Stanford’s genotyping claims affirmed as patent ineligible under section 101

Posted on March 26, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

In re:  Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Docket No. 2020-1288 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1288.OPINION.3-25-2021_1753695.pdf) PROST, LOURIE, REYNA March 25, 2021 Brief Summary:  PTAB decision of ineligibility under section 101 of second Stanford patent application affirmed (“patent ineligible abstract ideas … Continue reading →

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Rejection of Stanford’s diagnostic claims affirmed as “mental steps… not integrated into a practical application”, not including a “specific method of treatment for specific patients using a specific compound at specific doses to achieve a specific outcome”

Posted on March 15, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

In Re:  Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Docket No. 2020-1012 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1012.OPINION.3-11-2021_1746411.pdf) PROST, LOURIE, REYNA March 11, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board decision finding Stanford’s diagnostic claims ineligible (“mental steps… not integrated into a practical application”, no “specific … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment

DC ineligibility decision erroneous as claims not “solely directed to the printed matter”

Posted on November 23, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

C. R. Bard, et al. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1756, -1934 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1756.OPINION.11-10-2020_1683097.pdf) REYNA, SCHALL, STOLL November 10, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC erroneously granted JMOL based on expert mistake and conclusion that printed matter made claims patent ineligible under section … Continue reading →

Posted in Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

Revised FC opinion maintains invalidity of one independent claim as claiming a natural law and nothing more but vacates and remands DC invalidity decision regarding second independent claim as including “positioning” limitation”

Posted on August 13, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, et al. Docket No. 2018-1763 NEWMAN, TARANTO, STOLL October 3, 2019 (revised July 30, 2020) Update (July 30, 2020): Original FC opinion affirmed the DC decision that AA’s claims are ineligible … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

DC patent ineligibility holding for Illumina’s fetal DNA-related claims again reversed

Posted on August 5, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Illumina, Inc., Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1419 LOURIE, MOORE, REYNA March 17, 2020 Update (August 3, 2020): In a revision of its March 17, 2020 opinion reversing the DC’s 101 ineligibility decision, the FC … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

Patent ineligibility decision affirmed as claims “recite no technological solution”

Posted on June 25, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Dropbox, Inc. et al. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1765, -1767, -1823 PROST, WALLACH, HUGHES June 19, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC holdings of patent ineligibility affirmed as claims did not, e.g., “describe how to solve the problem in … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment